Wikipedia talk:Ghostwriting

Suggestions

I think that you nailed the problem. You asked on Gandydancer's page for a note on specific tactics you might want to highlight, and I would add the following:

1. Excessive requests. The corporate user makes multiple requests for edits to the article, overwhelming the few editors ordinarily monitoring each page. Vetting and confirming such requests would require large amounts of time, so the editors either cut-and-paste the suggestions or they accept the requested additions under the principal of assuming good faith.

2. Abuse of the principle "assume good faith." This Wikipedia principle is at loggerheads with the fact that public relations is aimed not at improving the accuracy of publications but at advancing the interests of the corporations. Thus public relations representatives are not contributing in good faith, but for the purpose of advancing a point of view. This fundamental reality is in effect denied by the current "assume good faith" rule. While it is true that many Wiki contributors violate the good faith principle every day, all public relations representatives, no matter how polite, are required to violate that principle by the nature of their jobs, regardless of their protests to the contrary.

You might also point out that there is a parallel between the work of public relations people on Wikipedia and corporate lobbyists in Washington, who also frequently draft legislation (similar to the practice here of drafting article segments), and also hold themselves out as "information purveyors."

There is also a parallel to the practice of travel publications and small town newspapers to publish articles written by public relations people in their travel, automotive and business sections. Such practices are viewed with disfavor by the publishing industry and the public, and their spread to Wikipedia is not a positive development.

Hope this helps, Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

These are all very helpful points, thanks, I'll incorporate them. By the way, feel free to edit the page itself if you want to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I may. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I've really hijacked your essay! Hope some of this is useful. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

What you're adding is good, so please feel free. I'm going to add a few examples, and some information about CREWE and the paid editor help desk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Good! There's a bit of repetition here and there, as I do drone on. Coretheapple (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Hi Slim. I don't think I would support this on general principle. Ghostwriting is how AfC and the BrightLine both work and there is nothing wrong with PRs offering contributed content to Wikipedia, which is then published by the site's editors, who find the content serves their readers. There is one difference between Wikipedia and how we would offer content to the media, which is the lack of authorship. While this is somewhat problematic, I don't see any way of solving it.

I do think that when you start talking about some of the largest controversies in history, the idea of them being written by corporate interests is contentious. Several analyses of the BP content have emerged, but the content is irrelevant - because people would find fault in it no matter what it was and such fault can be found on any article.

However, it is not practical to deny PRs from offering drafts, even in controversial areas, because often this is the only practical way to proceed if the current content is horrendous. I have re-written controversies in a PR role routinely, often expanding them and with mixed results depending on the client.

This is not a problem with PR behavior, but is due to the lack of education and understanding the community has about PR and what the relationship/collaboration should look like. We offer PRs "feedback" and take them through contentious areas with their feet dragging, pushing ownership of the article onto PRs against their will. What is needed here for the issue to progress is more understanding and education among the community on the nature of the relationship and best practices for collaboration. CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC) (PR guys and frequent COI contributor)

I agree that the Wiki community is ignorant of the proper role of PR people, and that more education and understanding is needed, and that is the purpose of this essay. Yes, lack of authorship is the difference between Wikipedia and other publishing enterprises, and that is precisely why PR-drafted articles and article text is so troublesome. In going from article to article, the reader has no way of knowing whether the article they are reading was drafted by "crowdsourcing" of independent editors or dreamed up in the headquarters of the corporation that is the subject of the article, then submitted for approval and accepted, with or without changes.

No, this is not a problem with PR behavior. You're correct. In the portion of this draft that I wrote, I made it clear that PR people are doing what they are paid to do, that they are not devils but simply doing their job. However, their job is not to improve the encyclopedia but to advance the interests of their clients, and any assumption that the two are equivalent or that they will put the former over the latter is delusional. Coretheapple (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

One other thing I just noticed. You talk about "what the relationship/collaboration should look like." That presupposes that there should be a relationship/collaboration. Relationship, yes, in the sense that if there are errors or bias in an article, point them out. If an article is "horrendous," describe how it is horrendous, just as you would if a New York Times article was horrendous. Collaboration, no. Coretheapple (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While technically the FTC requires that readers know the source of the communication, I think as a practical matter it would be adequate that the content represents "the judgement" of volunteer editors. Some problems require a large time-investment to correct and it's not realistic to point it out and expect a thoughtful volunteer to swoop down and correct it. However, NYT is a good comparison, both because they correct factual errors swiftly, and because it would be ludicrous to lobby them for specific language or micromanage their articles. Although it's difficult to tell on the Web, I get the tone that I am not welcome here, so I will just retire from this string and wish you all the best of luck. CorporateM (Talk) 01:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

As you wish, but your input is actually very helpful. You've raised some points that hadn't occurred to me, such as the points you raise just above. Coretheapple (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sometimes it is difficult to tell if editors are just frustrated or if they despise PRs on principle. In the case of the latter, there's no civil discussion to be had. If you ever want to pick my brain, you know how to reach me. CorporateM (Talk) 05:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it's a mistake to take the position that editors who are disturbed about PR people operating on Wikipedia "despise PRs on principle." I have seen absolutely zero evidence of anyone in Wikipedia hating PR people, and quite a bit to the contrary. More importantly, that kind of feeling tends to put people on the defensive, which I'm sure you'd agree is counterproductive.Coretheapple (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

But just to address your most recent comment on the merits: if an article is such a mess that it would take a large time investment to correct it, that appears to be a common situation I'm afraid. Many articles are absolute messes. There are probably thousands of articles that are disaster areas. Editors are required to spend large amounts of time to correct them. However, unless there is text which is absolutely libelous or factually wrong concerning living people, in which case I think the rules sanctioning your diving in and fixing it, it is better to point out the problems with articles rather than to propose text. The latter puts a burden on editors that goes beyond the ordinary burden of fixing messes. From your standpoint it is also a lower-profile way of serving your client, and one less likely to raise the hackles of editors who object to subjects of articles proposing text. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There is this problem that volunteers feel the need to cull through the content so closely that it would be easier for them to write it themselves. And if they choose to invest that time because they are interested in the subject-matter and in editing here, than they should just do so. However, all that is actually required is to assess whether the content is "an improvement." At AfC we accept quite a few articles that are pretty awful, but we approve them if they are better than nothing. Naturally, these things are situational and we would expect our standards and level of involvement to vary depending on the priority of the article and the intensity of the COI. What's more important than editor's that disclose and offer good (albeit imperfect) content, is stuff like this. CorporateM (Talk) 17:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe because I'm having a long day, I've read your post three times and don't understand it. Can you try to clarify it for the simple-minded? Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not practical to make BP's oil spills the example of which to establish standards on, because every situation is unique and requires common sense. For a lot of small organizations that are a low priority for us and have sterile reputations a decent PR-written article is adequate. For larger organizations, all one must do is identify the areas (lawsuits, controversies, reviews, etc.) where the COI is most intense and take a second look at those areas. Wikipedia is an indefinite work in progress, so it's only important that PR's offer value and improve the article, not that it be perfect.

BP is controversial because the COI is so intense for that content and the article such a high priority, etc. The offering of drafts being controversial is unique to the circumstance. CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks CorporateM. I've actually taken a break and won't be back on the site till next week, but I did want to respond to this. I understand your point, but look at it from my perspective. I don't think that readers expect that Wiki articles, no matter what the subject, either originated or were written by the subjecxt of the articles. I think that there is an expectation that the articles originated via crowdsourcing, like the rest of the encyclopedia, with article selection and editing being independent of influence from the article subjects or their representatives. Without that, content is skewed both in terms of the the articles that are placed in the encyclopedia and how they are written. A long article on a minor company becomes exaggerated in importance by the fact that it is written by the company. It gives the appearance that volunteer editors thought the company was so important that they took time off from their jobs to write up the article. I know that Wikipedia is skewed as it is, with too many articles on crappy subjects, but the kind of skewing that would result from p.r. people originating and fleshing out articles is the wrong kind of skewing too IMHO. Thanks again and I hope to pick up on the thread of this discussion next week. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That was always the spirit of Wikipedia and the point of the three core content policies – that here is material deemed worthy of mention by people not directly involved in it. They may have their own views, and the articles may reflect that bias if not written carefully, but hopefully someone with other ideas will come along soon, and over time things will be ironed out to offer a disinterested and uninvolved account.

But where subjects are writing about themselves and their own ideas/companies (directly or via willing editors), the whole encyclopaedia ends up skewed toward vanity editing and self-promotion. We already have this in the form of personal and company websites. Wikipedia is meant to offer a counterpoint to that, as in "and here is what the rest of the world thinks." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this? This guy irritated me, because he just wanted to update the article so it would reflect the latest messaging on their website. This is where the COI lies - PR people communicate how the company views itself, but Wikipedia expects us to communicate how we're viewed in reliable sources. This means we have to shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes and be journalists for ourselves; it's a tough gig. I'm still getting better at it myself and I don't think most PRs will be remotely successful at it.

But these are still content-based complaints, which I don't think is actually the issue. My complaints are focused on behavior and the way PR people treat this community with a sense of entitlement to control the page and as adversaries to getting the edits they want. What I think you mean to point out is the philosophical issue, because the extent of bias is irrelevant, since bias is prolific here anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 23:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)